Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 20, 2012 7:30pm-8:00pm PDT

7:30 pm
the enforcement action is a long, drawn-out process as well. it does not mean the units -- the previous case we had, they got a permit to remove it and they renew the permit in 2012. in answer to your question, you can link and the process but our department has to go ahead if they find the unit is illegal. based on the fact we are dealing with a complaint. president garcia: do fees toll? >> i do not think so. >> and abatement order could issue as well. >> it could. that is down the line. if you are continuing this and you're talking about enforcement, continuance will come before enforcement. am i right? perhaps.
7:31 pm
it is a long process. it is not something we go out there and pull people out of their home. there is also appeals board for the notice of violation. there are avenues for that. commissioner hillis: we have always told to go to code enforcement and ask them for continuances. it is not automatic. we do not tell them what to do. go to them and ask them and tell them i have a board of appeals proceeding. can you help me and postpone the abatement process? >> you are entitled to 30 days. when it gets to a hearing, we have to have a first and second notice and then you get your hearing date. then you can ask for an advisement to route to the process. there are processes to length
7:32 pm
and it. -- lenghten it. president garcia: what penalties would accrue? >> i do not think there will be very many because we are not going to cite them nine times on this. that is my opinion. president garcia: if we were slow to get back to it. >> the penalties to start to kick in for noncompliance with notice of violation and we have to refer to the city attorney's office. but could be two years away. in my experience. these are not easy. we all know that. >> any public comment? we will move into rebuttal. starting with the appellant.
7:33 pm
you have tremendous. -- three minutes. >> maybe it is because on the plans they submitted, the clear complaint, illegal unit. it is pretty bold right there. i do not know. i do not know if they have to look at nov's when plans are submitted to them. i think she had one comment she wanted to make about the ventilation system. basically i think you have the gist of what we are looking for. it does appear that it is an
7:34 pm
illegal unit. given the gentleman said it is going to cost between $100,000, if that is true, that is crazy. i will admit that. it is a unique building. it is a detached garage. there is a passageway you have to go through. it is a shame to lose this unit for her and for the city because we need affordable housing. if she is going to have to move, she will move. she is going to need time. all we can do is hope something comes up. you want to say something about the ventilation? >> one of the brothers that owns the property has been doing a lot of upkeep.
7:35 pm
he has built in ventilation, something that sucks out the cooking. he has done a lot of things. he insists, if it were possible to keep me there, he would do it. but he has to answer to his brother. >> his brother might be a nice he is torturing me. the whole thing i think, to even take an anonymous complaint and put me through all this stuff when there are hundreds of such places in town, you cannot take
7:36 pm
care of all these illegal units, through these people out on the street and make san francisco were famous. you can see 3 million homeless people crawling around. >> it does not change the fact that it is an illegal unit. >> thank you. >> i was obtained by the honor to do the permit research for the project. there is no microfilm that shows the unit is legal. our only alternative was to go in and talk to the planning department and the building
7:37 pm
department to see if we legalize it. that was our first attempt. because of the various requirements, the code requirements for upgrading the existing conditions, existing conditions that remained there noncompliant, the cost would be very high to make it legal. it would have to do fire sprinklers, there is a number of items. the grass is detached. it is a separate foundation. it is to buildings on one lot. -- two buildings on one light. -- one lot. to get to the unit is illegal and our corridor for our egress corridor is non-complying. we have 21 inches to get through and this would service the two
7:38 pm
existing buildings and the illegal unit which is a concern for the art department. and if you have questions, let me know. thank you. >> what is the age of this building? >> this was 1912. 1908. >> in its current configuration? >> that is what we believe. >> you have photos of the building? >> the subject building is the yellow building. you can see the the garage structure to the side of the main building which contains the two dwelling units. ? that door is the door to that
7:39 pm
separation between the two buildings. >> that is correct. as i mentioned previously, maybe i will go into the time of the -- if the permit holder has additional comments. they could remove the parking space zone to remain -- required under the code. they could expand to the front, have a window of the fraud that would do with the exposure issue so that is the yard variants and open variance. it would have the rear yard issue and building code issue. which i cannot have -- address. the subject property is a shallow lot.
7:40 pm
72 feet by a 35 feet wide. the structures are jason. >> anything further? commissioners, unless you have questions, the matter is submitted. >> i would start by saying i would establish a minimum position here first and see where we can go with it. beyond that. at a minimum i would suggest that we give the appellant at least one year here. at a minimum. how we do it, whether it is through continuance or call to the chair, we can do with that. the other way it to approach
7:41 pm
this -- the other way to approach this is to see whether, given the age of this building, whether it is three units predated, the change in the code. -- whether the units predated the change in the code. the change would not only be density but it would be predated in terms of parking requirement. given that the building was built in 1938 and 1912. >> things that are not up to code are grandfathered? >> no. not up to planning code. let's make sure that building code passed be taking care of. >> that would represent a considerable expense to the permit holder. >> i am not sure would buy those numbers that i heard.
7:42 pm
>> i have always felt comfortable about allowing a tenant to stay in the building when the landlord is in agreement. and there is no consequences for that land and when it helps the tenant. i would need to support what you suggested. i would need to hear from the permit holder that he is willing to have that happen, understanding that there would be no penalty to him. at least -- i am not still that clear on the criminal aspect. there would be no cost to him in terms of penalties by the city. in all likelihood. those are my comments for now. >> i would support commissioner fung.
7:43 pm
for the imes -- times he mentioned. >> i am struggling with this because although i want to support them, i am concerned about the safety issues and if we -- i undersand ms. dyloan would like to stay there. if we have an illegal unit, the liability would stem from where -- if there was a fire or some other unfortunate incident, the property would be liable to any injury from allowing her to stay. in what it is an illegal unit. -- in what is considered an illegal unit. >> that would be a problem with
7:44 pm
the proposal. queit depends on the liability. >> there a number of ways that are relatively inexpensive to increase the life safety aspects of the union -- unit. if it is the third unit and it is semi detached, they could take a sprinkler system that taps of the water service line rather than the fireline. that is relatively inexpensive to do. >> it might already sprinkled. >> they talk about a spring or as an upgrade. it is going to three units. >> could we add to that, ask the building department to inspect? >> we could do that.
7:45 pm
i think part of whatever happens to the final disposition of this unit is is up to the property owner. all we can do at this point is to allow them time to go through that process. i believe they could make an argument and it depends on whether it is going to be acceptable to their own code search. because if they file that is three units, the department does not allow them, that could be appealed back to here. >> what is missing from this discussion is the willingness of the permit holder to even go along with what is being proposed. what we're trying to do, i am
7:46 pm
sure it is obvious is buy some time for her. >> i would be willing to do that. if we can clear off illegal issues or find, that is what i am concerned about. >> i believe the order of abatement is not going to happen. that is what triggers things. >> in order to produce the concerns of one of the commissioners, having to do with life safety issues, would you look into the feasibility of sprinkling it? it would be probably a fire issue would be the greatest concern. >> we could look into that. >> we could ask the building department to do a site visit and see if they see anything imminent.
7:47 pm
we have done that before. >> i do not see how we could get this back on the calendar before september. do you? commissioner? >> ami not be here in september. nor will i. -- i may not be here in september. >> i am free in september. >> i am asking the board how far they're willing to go. >> if you're concerned about something popping up and they have no avenue, if we set a specific date, we could do the college here. i would be looking at a minimum of the year. should something come up in the meantime, they could request an art director and the department to bring it back. >> are you clear on what was just said? >> yes.
7:48 pm
>> did you want to make a motion? are you ok with this, knowing that they will go out there? >> yes and primarily the property owner is aware of what we're talking about here. >> do you want to say something? >> we will give you an opportunity. >> there is a big -- it can be lack of a smoke detector which is easily taking care of. when you have -- someone has been living here for a lot of years. we have not had -- we do not want anything to happen. would you be more specific? if i go -- i want to know -- >> it would be the one that allows the tenant to egress. >> there is a concern that is 21
7:49 pm
inches wide in areas but that has been like that for a long time. that is going to remain. sometimes we do not get that even in a legal building. that is -- 1908 is a long time ago. there may have been -- it has been like this for a long time. i can get the housing inspection services to do more detailed report on what are the issues and we will take it from there. >> you want to report back to this board? >> i can do that. >> can i make one comment? >> just quickly, the fire sprinkler system will be triggered by the three units. so if we cannot down the road to legalize the three units, we are putting a fire sprinkler in for a year. i got kind of confused on that.
7:50 pm
our biggest problem is the means of egress out of that unit. if you -- i can assure the planter a quick. -- i can show you the plan real quick. >> they can come back and paint a picture for us about how serious the issues are and that is why we ask your client, i am assuring it is your client to look into the feasibility of doing something that would diminish the chance there would be a life safety issue. we're not requiring that. we do not have the ability to require that. we're asking you to look into that. if after some time has passed, you feel like that is not feasible, when mr. duffy comes back with something the causes concern, you have to request it be taken off the call the chair and the should be brought back before the board. >> think you.
7:51 pm
-- thank you. >> there is a conflict. you're asking dbi to do some research and report back and then you're looking at a rather lengthy continuance and those two things do not seem to drive. >> you have to calendar for the report back. >> before a year. quex it not want to set a date for that now? >> i do not think so. do you want a date? >> the fact that we're still doing the permit research and the inspector is going back out there, i see the request to determine the illegal use of subject property. there will go back and they will write what i hope should be a pretty detailed and -- a list of the deficiencies in the unit. >> how about june 13? >> we will try and do it for that.
7:52 pm
it was ordered in march so it might already be there. i will leave that up to the chief housing inspector tomorrow. >> if some problem, you could always request a delay. >> that is where thought. >> there are two comments about the life safety. this is the proposed plan. the same configuration as we have now. there are rqi -- two digresses. one through the garage. there are sliding doors leading to a deck. unlike the late one unit that had won a chris, this has a second way out. -- last one that had egress, this has a second way out. i would think that would need sprinklers.
7:53 pm
>> it sounded like a one-year sprinklers thing. i thought this could be used for permanent storage. >> bear in mind that what you indicate as the second exit may not be an exit. from the deck, it looks like a relatively small yard. what they call an area refuge has to apply based on certain dimensions. >> you know better the night. there is another way out. or you go to i do not know. greece lived there safely for 19 years. ex-wife believe is on the floor is a motion by commissioner fung to continue to allow a dba to assist with these -- to inspect life safety issues. >> the party should be present.
7:54 pm
life safety -- quex my understanding is dbi is taking for the permitting. should that be reported back to you? >> please. >> ok. we have a motion from commissioner fong -- fung. >> the landlord seemed to work pretty hard to satisfy the needs of the tenant. >> the motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter to
7:55 pm
june 13. the public meeting has been held. on that motion, president garcia, aye. vice-president hwang, aye. commissioner fung, aye. commissioner hillis. aye. >> the last item is 10. appeal no. 12-029. subject property is at 138 fifth ave. appealing the denial on february 28, 2012 of a permit to alter a building, correct the record to show ill -- legal use and occupancy as single family dwelling. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners. president garcia.
7:56 pm
i'm not taking the time to recapitulate all the stuff i submitted in writing. this is a matter of a building that was converted into multiple units without permit and we're trying to correct the record and restore the building. it has been well over a year since anyone has lived in the building. there is no displacement or anything of that nature associated with this. just to quickly run through some pictures for you. this is a largely single-family portion of a long block. below lake street. and this is the other side. also single-family is, larger single-family homes. that was the back of the building. i want to show you a photograph to show how much added on and illegal -- potentially illegal
7:57 pm
work has been done on that property and it is in quite poor condition. this is the floor plan showing where the green arrow is, the entryway. you can see where the door has been put in where a window previously was and the entry foyer. you have the permit in the package i have submitted. that was issued for putting a door where that window was. on completion of that and another permits for a basement room at that time, the certificate of completion and occupancy was issued which has created this series of processes. let me run through a couple more slides for you. this is the upper unit. the kitchen is pushed to the front.
7:58 pm
there's a great deal of space taken up with the interior access. it is not a good unit. this is the property resource database which still shows as a single-family dwelling. they get their information from the assessor's office and i will show you that in a moment. this is the map which shows just one address, 138 fifth ave. i went through the directories going back into the 1950's, 1960's an 1970's. it was 138 fifth avenue. if i could go to the overhead. 138 fifth avenue is the only address that the assessor's office has and this is the assessors building record which very clearly is indicating it has a single family dwelling. it was never a permit issued to
7:59 pm
change the use. which is what is required for the planning department to act, to create a new dwelling unit. the point at which the second unit first shows up in the record is sometime in the 70's. -- 1970's. the polk directory never shows an entry until the 1982 poll, where -- polk. it shows as a new address in the directory system. the building department has reviewed all these materials. the only problem i have is there was a certificate of final completion of issued and they felt it was properly in the discretion of this board to


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on